28 homes at Land South Of Athelhampton Road, Puddletown

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement securing mitigation, affordable housing funding, viability review and public open space arrangements.

“The proposed development would also conflict with the Puddletown Neighbourhood Plan through the fact that it would not be providing any affordable housing onsite due to issues surrounding viability, however Policy 11 of the Neighbourhood Plan does acknowledge that the mix of house types may be varied if there is clear evidence that site specific constraints or viability would otherwise prohibit development, and that any change to the mix should demonstrate how genuinely…”

“Recommendation To delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager (Northern Area) to: A) Grant, subject to the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the Legal Services manager to secure the following: • Nutrient Neutrality offsite mitigation • Affordable Housing…”

Officer report

Residents’ comments

One representation objected on heritage, development plan, notification and boundary grounds, while three comments raised access and cemetery matters.

“Representations Received: It should be noted that multiple representations of objection were received from the same household therefore these representations have been considered as one representation. Summary of Objections Received (1x Representation Received):”

“The application documents (namely the heritage statement prepared by Forum heritage are deficient • The application does not conform with the Development Plan and there are no material considerations justifying departure from the Development Plan • The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the public benefits of the Proposed Development outweigh the harm to the nearby heritage assets • Lack of notification of this application • Boundary of the proposed development…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A senior manager for the homebuilder supported the scheme, describing its design, housing, viability, infrastructure and environmental benefits.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed drainage safety, housing mix, accessible homes, site levels, biodiversity and the absence of affordable housing before supporting the design.

“Members questions and comments • A Member queried the suitability of the site and noted its proximity to local bus stops and services. Questions were raised regarding the gradients of the proposed attenuation ponds, whether these would be fenced, and the measures proposed to ensure safety and ease of access. • A Member referred to the proposed housing mix and noted the absence of bungalows.”

“Whilst acknowledging that the absence of affordable housing made applications of this nature more difficult to support, a Member considered that the justification had been clearly explained. The design, layout and placemaking aspects of the scheme were praised, with the development viewed as creating a place rather than simply delivering housing.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the officer recommendation to grant permission was proposed and seconded.

“Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Jones, and seconded by Cllr Jespersen.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the minutes’ appendix.

“Decision: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.”

Minutes